[asia-apec 1302] Concerns Over Glyphosate Use

[PAN Asia Pacific]

PAN AP Pesticides and GE Campaign Update - 15 - 9 - 99
------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

Please find below the Article from The Sun (Malaysia), Friday August
20, 1999 which carried PAN AP's response to Monsanto over questions
of possible links between glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, with
reference to the Hardell/Eriksson Study on NHL Links to Herbicides
that appeared in 'Cancer' on March 15,1999. PAN AP also posed
overall questions as to the 'safety' of glyphosate - according to
AGROW Crop Protection News, 211 million kg of glyphosate were used
last year and the volume is growing at an average of 20% per year.

As Dr. Hardell and Dr. Eriksson recommended in their study, "Since
the time period for diagnosis in this study, the use of glyphosate
has increase d dramatically, especially during the 1990s, and it is
now the most commo n herbicide used in Sweden.........Recently, we
published an increased risk for hairy cell leukemia, a rare type of
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, for subjects exposed to glyphosate as well as
for subjects exposed to other pesti cides.  For these reasons,
glyphosate deserves further epidemiologic studies".

The article below was the fourth to appear in the SUN after PAN AP's
original Press Release - New Study Links World's Biggest Selling
Pesticides (see PAN AP Webpage for more).   

For PAN AP's original, more comprehensive response to the SUN please
refer to "PAN AP's Response To Monsanto's Counter-Claims" on our
Webpage: www.poptel.org.uk/panap


-------------------------- News Article Begins -------------------


The Sun (Malaysia), Friday August 20, 1999


Concerns Over Glyphosate Use

Monsanto and PAN are embroiled in a hot debate over safety of a
widely-used herbicide.  S.Puvaneswary has both sides of the story.

A widely-used herbicide which accounts for 48% of the Malaysian
market in pesticides may not be safe to use.  A recent study which
shows clear links between exposure to the herbicide  glyphosate and
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), a form of cancer that afflicts the
lymphatic system, has caused worldwide concern over the safety of
the herbicide on humans.

The study was conducted by eminent oncologists Dr Lennart Hardell
and Dr  Mikael Eriksson of Sweden and published in the journal
Cancer by the American Cancer Society on March 15.

It maintains that exposure to glyphosate "yielded increased risks
for NHL". "What these scientists unearthed is indicative of the
long-term chronic effects of pesticides", said Sarojeni V.  Rengam,
executive director, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Asia and the
Pacific. "In this case, where there are serious implications to
human health, the  precautionary principle must apply," she said.
"We have to take precautions against using these dangerous
chemicals."

The widely-used herbicide glyphosate indiscriminately kills off a
wide variety of weeds after application and is primarily used to
control annual and perennial plants.

PAN has called on the government to look at its regulatory standards
on glyphosate residues because if such monitoring is not immediately
done, the health of Malaysians would be at risk as glyphosate
accounts for about 48% of the Malaysian market in pesticides,
according to AGROW Crop Protection Report, 1996.

The Hardell study is the centre of a debate between Monsanto, which
refutes its findings, and PAN which upholds the study. The US firm
manufactures Roundup, a glyphosate herbicide.  

The arguments and counter-arguments of both parties relating to the
study were sent to the SUN.


Monsanto's Argument:

Previous evaluations conducted by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest that
glyphosate is not mutagenic or carcinogenic. 
        WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have
approved the safety of glyphosate residues in genetically-engineered
Roundup Ready soya beans. 


PAN's Counter Argument:

The EPA and WHO evaluations were done more than five years ago and
are based mainly on data submitted to them by Monsanto. These
evaluations did conclude that "there is no evidence of mutagenicity
or carcinogenicity" based on the available data, but they do not
support definitive assertions that glyphosate "is not mutagenic or
carcinogenic".  
        Previous EPA and WHO evaluations which made similar claims
for other chemicals had to be revised as new evidence came to
light. 
        The establishment of the WHO's Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is b
ased on limited studies using limited parameters which do not
account for vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, the
sick and other groups that might have increased susceptibility to
glyphosate exposure.


Monsanto's Argument:

Well-characterised scientific literature reviewing over 1,000
studies over the last 25 years demonstrates that extraordinary
safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient of roundup herbicide.  


PAN's Counter Argument:

There are very few independent studies on glyphosate available in
published scientific literature and no responsible reviewer of
health science literature, health scientist, or toxicologist would
claim "extraordinary safety" for glyphosate. 
        Data from independent sources indicate serious concerns
about glyphosate  toxicity. 
        In 1995, the National Poisons Centre reported an increase of
glyphosate poisonings in Malaysia. In the UK, it was reported that
glyphosate was the most frequent cause of complaints and incidents
from pesticides recorded by the Health and Safety Executive.


Monsanto's Argument:

The epidemiology study conducted by oncologists Hardell and Eriksson
did not find statistically significant associations between NHL and
reported  cases of fungicides and herbicides. 
        Reported use of glyphosate, along with reported use of
several other herbicides showed a weak, not statistically
significant association with NHL. 


PAN's Counter Argument:

A weak association is an association nevertheless, and could be
statistically significant given that 211 million kg of glyphosate
were used last year and the volume is growing at an average of 20%
per year.
        The Hardell study observed a positive association between
exposure to glyphosate and NHL, in which, chance and bias could be
ruled out with reasonable confidence.


Monsanto's Argument:

Exposure to glyphosate is not likely to be meaningful.  Exposure
opportunity is almost exclusively through dermal contact.  
Glyphosate has shown very low skin penetrability in experimental
studies. 


PAN's Counter Argument:

Scientific principles, particularly toxicokinetics, must apply. The
exposed person will be subjected to risks of adverse effects, known
or unknown. 
        Even if the chemical has low vapor pressure, appreciable
inhalation exposure can occur since micro-droplets can form and
particulates can be carried by movement of air.  Oral intake can
also occur through contaminated food or water.  
        The fact that glyphosate is a systemic herbicide and
persists in the environment for a relatively long period of time (as
long as 3 years in soil) makes it likely to enter the body through
residues in food and water. 
        Residues are unlikely to be removed from plant tissues and
use of glyphosate in animal feed can result in residues in animal
food products such as meat, milk and eggs. Residues are stable to
up to one year in plant materials and water and up to two years in
animal products in storage. 

Finally PAN upholds the right of farmers, workers and consumers to
be informed, and to have access to all the information on poisons
that they are using, spraying, and possibly consuming.

In its statement to the SUN, PAN upholds the right of people to make
informed choices on what they may be exposed to, and whether they
are willing to be exposed to these chemicals.

-------------------------- Article ENDS ------------------------



PAN Asia Pacific
P.O. Box 1170
10850 Penang
Malaysia
Tel.:   604-6570271
        604-6560381
Fax.:   604-6577445
http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap